Does No One Remember That The NBA Tried And Failed To Do Paid Internet Videos A Year Ago?
from the reporting?--bah! dept
Perhaps it's not surprising to find reporters who can't remember events in the tech world from 10 years ago when the same things are repeating themselves today, but is it really so hard to expect a reporter from a major publication (say, the NY Times) to at least remember what happened a year ago? In January of 2006, Google announced its Google Video product to tremendous fanfare. At the time of the launch, the big story wasn't about a YouTube competitor (YouTube still wasn't that big), but that Google had signed a bunch of deals with content providers to let users buy online videos. One of the big brand name partners was the NBA, who had agreed to post videos of basketball games (both recent and classic) that could be downloaded for just $4. Lots of folks wrote about it -- even the NY Times. It was a "big deal." Of course, what followed was that no one wanted to pay to see basketball games online. Instead, everyone gravitated to free content on YouTube. So, Google just bought YouTube and the deal with the NBA was quietly shuttered, receiving a lot less attention than when it was announced. So why is it that when the NBA decides to let fans buy both new and classic games from its own site for $3 (getting cheaper!), it's written up as a big new thing in the NY Times without a single mention of the fact that the NBA failed at doing nearly an identical thing just a year ago?